John Owen—A Caveat, part 10

by | Oct 9, 2018 | Eschatology

So far, I have covered five points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3.  Let me add another argument in this post.  Here is my sixth objection to Owen’s exegesis.

The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued

Owen takes 2 Peter 3:4 as concerning Jews only and only relevant to the men of that generation (page 134).  The words of Owen are: “Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation.  He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews;—some of them believing, others opposing the faith.  Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread of the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and, besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ; —which was the thing in question between them.” (Works, 9:134)

To state the problem briefly, such an approach to the imminence of Christ’s return suggests that Christ’s Second Coming in glory is not relevant for this early generation of the Christian era.  The problem is that, if there is any evidence for the Second Coming in the New Testament, it is always accompanied by exhortations that it is near and that we are to stay awake, be alert, not fall asleep.  However we explain the imminence and relevance of Christ’s long awaited return for that generation, it is clearly relevant to them.   This doubt arises in light of Owen’s exegesis: how could any passage which speaks of a coming of Christ that is relevant for that generation of Jews, actually be a reference to His future return in glory?

Follow Us In Social Media

Subscribe via Email

Sign up to get notified of new CBTS Blog posts.


Man of God phone
Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

Before critiquing theonomy, we need a good definition. Some people today who use the word “theonomy” don’t mean anything more than “God’s law” because the etimology of the word theonomy is “theos” which means God, and “nomos” which means law. They only want to affirm that God’s law is supreme over man’s law. And they’re right about that. God’s transcendent moral law is the norm that norms all norms. Governmental laws should always be consistent with God’s law and human law must never violate God’s law.

But in this post, I’ll be using the word “theonomy” in a more technical sense, which is rooted in the historic usage of the term.

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

It is always a humbling and learning experience to read the responses to a blog series on a controversial subject. Iron does sharpen iron, as the Bible says, and I learn much from those responses. Some postmils have taken a little umbrage at my description of Postmillennialism as a millennium involving a distinct, golden age following the one in which we live.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This